Looks matter.�People who look good have an unfair advantage over the others.

Beautiful people are more likely to get a people-facing job.

One reason for the widespread interest in looks is that it has the potential to reduce the degree of bias underpinning human decisions.

 For example, meta-analytic studies have long highlighted the pervasive nature of bias in hiring and recruitment. But one of the most prominent biases is hardly ever discussed or acknowledged, namely the “beauty bias” — also known as “lookism”.

The existence of a beauty premium in the labor market is well-documented. Physically attractive individuals are more likely to be interviewed for jobs and hired, they are more likely to advance rapidly in their careers through frequent promotions, and they earn higher wages than unattractive individuals.

“Beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder.” This is true because the concept of beauty depends entirely on how we perceive it.

Beauty is not flawless, but it makes one shine through their imperfections. What we should not forget is that. Every woman is beautiful in their unique way. Beautiful Indian girls who have achieved a lot at a very young age, worked through success, and are supremely talented.

Common manifestations of appearance-based discrimination may include bias against obese, oddly-dressed, or tattooed candidates, or any people who don’t fit a society’s dominant aesthetic criteria.

Even in the rich and liberal world, there are many biases at play in the workplace, which account for the unmeritocratic or unfair advantage that some groups have over others, irrespective of their actual talent or potential: sexism, racism, and ageism, to name just a few.

But one of the most prominent biases is hardly ever discussed or acknowledged, namely the beauty bias — also known as” lookism .”

Indeed, the existence of a beauty premium in the labor market is well-documented   “Physically attractive individuals are more likely to be interviewed for jobs and hired, they are more likely to advance rapidly in their careers through frequent promotions, and they earn higher wages than unattractive individuals.”

Broadly speaking, the beauty bias concerns the favorable treatment that individuals receive when they are deemed more attractive, regardless of whether this happens consciously or unconsciously — and of course few individuals, let alone employers, actually admit to preferring to work with others on the basis of their higher levels of attractiveness.

A significant body of research suggests that a person’s attractiveness level is far more predictive of a range of success outcomes than one would hope if we want to live in a fair and unbiased world.

So, what does the science actually tell us?

Disclaimer: The information on this POST is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional advice. The opinions expressed within this article are the personal opinions of the author. All content, including text, graphics, images and information, contained on or available through this article is for general information purposes / educational purposes only, and to ensure discussion or debate.

Thank you …A pro-attractiveness bias already exists in education, with studies showing that physically attractive students tend to obtain higher grades at university, partly because they are deemed more conscientious and intelligent, even when they are not.

 Attractiveness already helps students get into universities in the first place, by eliciting more favorable evaluations during college admissions interviews.

This is consistent with the broader findings of a very well-established “halo” effect whereby attractive people are generally perceived as being more sociable, healthy, successful, honest, and talented.

Even children are assumed to be smarter, more honest, and driven, when they are deemed more attractive — and children make the same type of inferences when they evaluate more or less attractive adults.

Unsurprisingly, the beauty bias transfers into the workplace, with scientific studies showing that less attractive individuals are more likely to get fired, even though they are also less likely to be hired in the first place.

Attractive women and men were much more likely to get a call back for an interview than unattractive (or no-photograph) candidates were.

Do you want to add a word or two?….

There is also a well-established association between attractiveness and long-term income, with above-average beauty translating into 10% to15 % higher salaries than below-average beauty.

 In the U.S., this beauty premium is similar to the one found for race or gender.

Note that this effect is found even among highly successful individuals. For instance, attractiveness ratings of Fortune 500 executives predicted their companies’ profits.

Correlation does not mean causation, but let’s not forget that correlations do have causes. One de correlation does not mean causation, but let’s not forget that correlations do have causes.

Your comments ….

One delicate issue is the possibility — supported by much evolutionary psychology— that the cause of the correlation between beauty and career success is not prejudice or bias, but actual talent. In other words, could it be that, at least in part.

Attractive people do better in life because they actually possess more adaptive traits, such as intelligence or talent?

At times, this proposition is hard to test, not least because of the common absence of objective performance data that is not conflated with subjective preference.

Consider that most peoples’ performance is measured simply by a single subjective rating provided by their direct line manager or boss.

If employers lack objective data to distill managers’ bias and subjective preferences from their ratings of their employees’ performance, how can they quantify an employees’ exact contribution to the firm?

It is for this very reason that attempts to use attractiveness have exposed racial preferences around what is found more or less attractive in a given culture.

At times it is hard to determine whether appearance should be treated as a bias factor or job-relevant trait: especially when employees’ performance depends on the perceptions customers or clients have of them.

In support of this idea, positive correlations between attractiveness ratings on one hand, and scores on socially desirable personality traits, such as emotional stability, extraversion, and ambition on the other.

For example, physical attractiveness — just like psychological attractiveness (EQ or likability) — contributes to better sales and fundraising potential, so is it sensible to stop employers from hiring more attractive salespeople or fundraisers?

If you liked this post from DAYAL why not share it?